MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945471955 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5679570.v1

Qualitative and Quantitative Dosage of the Anti M-Type Phospholipase A2 Receptor Autoantibody: One-Year Experience in Quebec’s Reference Center

2021· other· en· W6945471955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibodyQuantitative analysis (chemistry)CohortImmunofluorescenceMembranous nephropathyGold standard (test)Diagnostic testCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Quantification of the M-type phospholipase A2 receptor antibodies (anti-PLA2R) is now an essential tool for diagnosis and management of primary membranous nephropathy (MN). Since October 2018, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont (HMR) has been designated as Quebec’s reference center for serum anti-PLA2R antibody testing by the Institut National d’Excellence en Santé et Services Sociaux (INESSS), the regulatory body on drugs and tests usage in Quebec.Objectives:To describe the 2-step method of serum qualitative and quantitative anti-PLA2R antibody testing during its first year of use in Quebec and analyze its diagnostic value in the province’s population.Design:Retrospective cohort study.Setting:Single-center academic teaching hospital in Quebec, Canada.Patients:All patients who had a serum anti-PLA2R antibody test analyzed at HMR from October 1, 2018, to October 1, 2019, were included in the study.Measurements:Serum anti-PLA2R antibodies were screened by indirect immunofluorescence tests. If results were positive or undetermined, it was followed by a quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. Both tests were based on a commercial kit developed by the same company.Methods:We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and likelihood ratio for both tests, using kidney biopsy findings performed at HMR as the gold standard.Results:In Quebec, a total of 1690 tests were performed among 1025 patients during the study year. A small proportion of these patients (8%) were followed at HMR. Patients tested at HMR and in the rest of Quebec had similar characteristics. Test validity was only characterized for patients tested at HMR. Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 58% and 100% for the qualitative test, and 71% and 100% for the quantitative test. The combined net sensitivity was 42% and the net specificity 100%. The net positive and negative predictive value were 100% and 84% respectively, whereas the net negative likelihood ratio was 0.58.Limitations:As the detailed analysis was only possible in the small proportion of patients clinically followed at HMR, there is a possible selection bias. Another potential selection bias was the focus on patients who were selected to have a kidney biopsy, probably because of more severe disease, higher probability of glomerulonephritis, or lesser number of comorbidities. Given the retrospective nature of this study, there was no systematic kidney biopsy or serum PLA2R antibody testing performed. Finally, we were unable to provide detailed information on the timing between immunosuppressive therapy and anti-PLA2R results.Conclusions:Serum anti-PLA2R antibody testing was widely used in Quebec during its first year of availability. A 2-step approach, using a qualitative test first, followed by a quantitative test if the results are positive or undetermined, appears efficient to avoid useless quantitative testing in negative patients and to better characterize undetermined results on immunofluorescence.Trial registration:Due to the retrospective nature of this study, no trial registration was performed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207